Which court decided it?

Supreme Court in 2020. Neutral citation: [2020] UKSC 23.

Why does it matter for UK journalists?

S.4 public-interest defence retains Reynolds sensibilities but is codified — treated as a distinct statutory test. Reasonable belief in public interest is the central assessment. Serious procedural unfairness at trial invalidated the judgment.

Serafin v Malkiewicz

[2020] UKSC 23 — Supreme Court, 2020

Last reviewed: 14 July 2026Next review due: 14 January 2027

What the court held

The Supreme Court set aside a trial judgment because the trial judge's conduct denied the claimant a fair trial. The court also considered the Defamation Act 2013 s.4 public-interest defence and its interaction with Reynolds.

Key rulings

S.4 public-interest defence retains Reynolds sensibilities but is codified — treated as a distinct statutory test.
Reasonable belief in public interest is the central assessment.
Serious procedural unfairness at trial invalidated the judgment.

Topics

DefamationPublic interest defencefair-trial

Acts cited

Defamation Act 2013

Authoritative source

Read the full judgment on BAILII (British and Irish Legal Information Institute):

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2020/23.html

Related landmark cases

Landmark caseCadwalladr v Banks [2022] EWHC 1435 (QB)Read →Landmark caseFlood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKSC 11Read →Landmark caseJameel v Wall Street Journal Europe [2006] UKHL 44Read →Landmark caseReynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127Read →

Case summaries are drafted by UK JournoHub Editorial for practising UK journalists. They are not legal advice. Always consult primary sources and, for high-risk stories, take specialist legal advice.